Electronic inventory systems and barcode technology: impact on pharmacy technical accuracy and error liability.
Abstract
Purpose: To measure the effects associated with sequential implementation of electronic medication storage and inventory systems and product verification devices on pharmacy technical accuracy and rates of potential medication dispensing errors in an academic medical center. Methods: During four 28-day periods of observation, pharmacists recorded all technical errors identified at the final visual check of pharmaceuticals prior to dispensing. Technical filling errors involving deviations from order-specific selection of product, dosage form, strength, or quantity were documented when dispensing medications using (a) a conventional unit dose (UD) drug distribution system, (b) an electronic storage and inventory system utilizing automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) within the pharmacy, (c) ADCs combined with barcode (BC) verification, and (d) ADCs and BC verification utilized with changes in product labeling and individualized personnel training in systems application. Results: Using a conventional UD system, the overall incidence of technical error was 0.157% (24/15,271). Following implementation of ADCs, the comparative overall incidence of technical error was 0.135% (10/7,379; P = .841). Following implementation of BC scanning, the comparative overall incidence of technical error was 0.137% (27/19,708; P = .729). Subsequent changes in product labeling and intensified staff training in the use of BC systems was associated with a decrease in the rate of technical error to 0.050% (13/26,200; P = .002). Conclusions: Pharmacy ADCs and BC systems provide complementary effects that improve technical accuracy and reduce the incidence of potential medication dispensing errors if this technology is used with comprehensive personnel training.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Oldland et al. reinforced the importance of user training by stating that MAEs were reduced only once intense user education on accurate use of ADCs was undertaken.
“Oldland et al. reinforced the importance of user training by stating that MAEs were reduced only, once intense user education on accurate use of ADCs was undertaken.41”
From Benefits and challenges associated with implementation and ongoing use of automated dispensing cabinet for medicines: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jung, Y. Y., Walsh, Á., Patel, J., & Lai, K. (2025) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100599 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oldland, A. R., Golightly, L. K., May, S. K., Barber, G. R., & Stolpman, N. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Golightly, Larry K.
- Venue
- Hospital Pharmacy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 034-041
- ISSN
- 0018-5787 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-1253
- OpenAlex
- W4252361637
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Hospital Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Keywords
- barcode technology, medication dispensing errors, automated dispensing cabinets, unit dose drug distribution, product verification, product labeling, employee training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review